82:. This guideline and its criteria are intended for use in determining whether a topic is notable due to being a part of or related to science. The tests in this guideline are intended to be fairly rigirous so that a topic that is acceptable under this guideline can be considered an appropriate part of Knowledge (XXG). However, the failure of a topic to meet this guideline's criteria does not automatically exclude it, as it may attain notability through
115:, and academic recognition. Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the opinions of outside authorities, not those of Knowledge (XXG) editors. Inclusion or exclusion is therefore not a judgement on the validity, importance or accuracy of a scientific contribution, but simply a reflection of the quality and quantity of responses it received inside and outside the
253:, which involve a direct conflict between scientific and religious doctrine, are properly evaluated both on a scientific and theological basis. Similarly, subjects purporting to have a scientific basis may be noteworthy primarily on cultural or sociological bases, such as UFOs, which can usefully be discussed from several different perspectives.
46:
102:
policy but which none the less are not appropriate to
Knowledge (XXG) because they do have sufficient notability. Such topics mostly represent new findings and theories, as well as past findings and theories that have failed to gain significant attention in either scientific circles or the public at
332:
For biographical articles and articles on fringe science, there is some loosening of these requirements. Works by the topic of a biographical article are relevant to the article whether their writing was published in a reliable journal/publisher or not. Also, the contents of a journal devoted to a
328:
Journals from scientific societies of developing countries are occasionally not reliable. If a finding in such a journal should prove to be of great scientific interest, that finding is often reprinted and/or reported in reliable scientific sources. In such a case, the original journal article can
313:
Journals from which citations and evidence of notability are obtained are expected to be well known and respected within the relevant research field. The previous requirement of citation from a peer-reviewed source is not alone sufficient by this requirement. (Peer review is done just as easily by
300:
To determine notability it is important to keep in mind that different fields sometimes use the same term to describe different concepts. On the other hand, especially in the early stages of a field, terminology is often not standardized and different terms are used for the same concept. The policy
196:
Papers covering the contribution have been widely cited in its research field relative to other papers in the same area. Self-citations, and citations in journals which are not respected within the relevant research field should be
380:: A "research field" indicates an established area of study for which the topic in question is only a part. A topic cannot be its own research field, nor can it gain notability from being part of a field which is non-notable.
106:
A key element to understanding this guideline is that
Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a research publication, and as such Knowledge (XXG) does not usurp the usual validation processes of scientific institutions such as
333:
fringe science can provide evidence as to the past or current thinking within that fringe field. However, the fringe science journals cannot provide evidence for the outright notability of the topic.
259:
325:
Textbooks should either be well-known and respected or produced by a reputable scientific publisher (which is most likely the same publisher as one or more respected journals).
239:
Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena, should not be handled as scientific. For example, the
359:
409:
183:
In general, a contribution in the field of science is notable enough to merit inclusion in
Knowledge (XXG) if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
404:
229:, disregarded, or dismissed by the scientific community or the culture at large. The article should make note of the subject's status in this regard.
419:
358:: Citation counts and peer review mechanisms differ vastly between sciences, fields, and subfields, and editors are urged to inform the relevant
434:
151:
64:
68:
53:
394:
35:
207:. In this case the article should make note of this status. A single article on the theory, even if from a major media source such as
225:
It has historically met any of the above criteria within the scientific community or the culture at large but has since either been
399:
155:
95:
28:
190:
There is regular non-incidental mention of the contribution in general or specialized textbooks published by reputable presses.
235:
It is or was believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, even if rejected by scientific authorities.
63:
for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
414:
348:: The scientific contribution must have a major entry in the work. A passing mention of the concept is not sufficient.
274:
281:
A scientific term is considered notable and worthy of inclusion in
Knowledge (XXG) if the following can be established:
226:
389:
329:
be cited as a primary source, but its relevance should be backed up by secondary citations in known reliable sources.
305:
gives more information on the choice of the proper term when more than one term is used in the scientific literature.
245:
itself is primarily covered as a religious scripture rather than as a cosmology. On the other hand, subjects such as
203:
It is or was well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being a recurrent theme in notable works of
99:
60:
116:
112:
94:
The need for this guideline comes from there being a set of topics which do not fail the test of the
319:
215:
302:
159:
147:
143:
315:
250:
139:
135:
131:
127:
79:
241:
289:
167:
293:
163:
123:
83:
428:
209:
17:
246:
108:
362:
about ongoing debates to get expert input. It should also be noted that
322:
in existence, uses editorial as well as peer review for submissions.)
204:
34:
For the guideline on notability of scientists and other academics, see
78:
Ideas related to science are an important part of any comprehensive
288:
A trajectory of use for the term in the scientific literature from
40:
260:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability (science)/Irrelevant arguments
314:
a fringe science journal as by a leading journal, while
285:
A commonly agreed-upon formal or informal definition
366:of citations is often only a poor approximation of
309:Assessing the reliability and relevance of sources
103:large (or so far failed to gain said attention).
86:itself or another of its subsidiary guidelines.
405:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (science)/Test cases
132:Not an indiscriminate collection of information
410:Category:AfD debates (Science and technology)
27:"WP:SCI" redirects here. For other uses, see
8:
126:derives its relevance from the policies
420:List of academic journal search engines
90:Notability of topics related to science
395:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics)
7:
400:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (numbers)
29:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Science
25:
435:Knowledge (XXG) failed proposals
415:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources
275:Knowledge (XXG):Avoid neologisms
219:, is not a sufficient criterion.
44:
390:Knowledge (XXG):Fringe theories
1:
154:), as well as the guidelines
318:, one of the most respected
128:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
100:Knowledge (XXG):Attribution
451:
375:
353:
343:
257:
33:
26:
162:. Also of importance are
36:WP:Notability (academics)
67:or initiate a thread at
144:Neutral point of view
223:Historical interest.
156:Conflict of interest
140:No original research
124:notability guideline
117:scientific community
113:scientific consensus
96:No original research
320:scientific journals
216:Scientific American
18:Knowledge (XXG):SCI
303:naming conventions
201:Press and fiction.
136:Not a crystal ball
188:Textbook science.
76:
75:
16:(Redirected from
442:
379:
357:
347:
267:Scientific terms
251:creation science
69:the village pump
48:
47:
41:
21:
450:
449:
445:
444:
443:
441:
440:
439:
425:
424:
386:
373:
351:
341:
339:
316:Nature magazine
311:
269:
262:
242:Book of Genesis
233:Popular belief.
181:
176:
146:(in particular
130:(in particular
92:
72:
45:
39:
32:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
448:
446:
438:
437:
427:
426:
423:
422:
417:
412:
407:
402:
397:
392:
385:
382:
338:
335:
310:
307:
298:
297:
286:
279:
278:
268:
265:
264:
263:
237:
236:
230:
220:
198:
191:
180:
177:
175:
172:
98:policy or the
91:
88:
74:
73:
59:
58:
49:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
447:
436:
433:
432:
430:
421:
418:
416:
413:
411:
408:
406:
403:
401:
398:
396:
393:
391:
388:
387:
383:
381:
378:
377:
371:
369:
365:
361:
356:
355:
349:
346:
345:
336:
334:
330:
326:
323:
321:
317:
308:
306:
304:
295:
291:
287:
284:
283:
282:
277:
276:
271:
270:
266:
261:
256:
255:
254:
252:
248:
244:
243:
234:
231:
228:
224:
221:
218:
217:
212:
211:
210:New Scientist
206:
202:
199:
195:
194:Widely cited.
192:
189:
186:
185:
184:
178:
173:
171:
169:
165:
164:verifiability
161:
160:Autobiography
157:
153:
152:Pseudoscience
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
120:
118:
114:
110:
104:
101:
97:
89:
87:
85:
81:
70:
66:
65:the talk page
62:
57:
55:
50:
43:
42:
37:
30:
19:
374:
372:
367:
363:
352:
350:
342:
340:
331:
327:
324:
312:
299:
280:
272:
240:
238:
232:
222:
214:
208:
200:
193:
187:
182:
148:Undue weight
121:
105:
93:
80:encyclopedia
77:
51:
360:WikiProject
247:creationism
168:reliability
109:peer review
294:verifiable
258:See also:
227:superseded
170:policies.
52:This is a
273:See also
197:excluded.
61:Consensus
56:proposal.
429:Category
384:See also
364:quantity
290:reliable
174:Criteria
376:^Note 3
368:quality
354:^Note 2
344:^Note 1
296:sources
205:fiction
179:General
54:failed
337:Notes
122:This
292:and
166:and
158:and
150:and
142:and
134:and
84:WP:N
301:on
249:or
213:or
138:),
431::
370:.
119:.
111:,
71:.
38:.
31:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.